Guest post by Dr. Tim Ball
A common fallback position when losing an argument is to assault your adversary personally. Known as ad hominem, it involves “attacking an opponent’s motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain.”
In climate science, those who employ this rhetorical tactic attack individuals who ask probing scientific questions. The attacks indicate that they know how inadequate their science is. It often works because of a deliberate campaign to exploit basic sensitivities: fear the sky is falling, guilt about not protecting the environment, guilt about the damage already done, fear and embarrassment of showing ignorance.
People who challenge the claims of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are often labeled “global warming skeptics”. Skeptics do not deny that warming occurred in modern times, but, sensibly, questioned the cause. The IPCC said it was due to human production of CO2. This is driven by a political agenda, not science, so any opposition is considered troublesome and requires silencing.
The IPCC claim is an unproven hypothesis. Science advances by proposing hypotheses that other scientists challenge in their proper role as skeptics. The word skeptic has markedly different public and scientific connotation; negative for the former and positive for the latter. Scientists act as skeptics by trying to disprove the hypothesis. Global warming skeptics are acting appropriately.
The IPCC hypothesis was untested. Professor Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said that consensus was claimed before the research even began. The IPCC tried to prove the hypothesis, putting them in the untenable position of eliminating, ignoring, or manipulating anything that showed the hypothesis was wrong. They had to shoot the skeptics who were the messengers of the problems.
Evidence showing that the hypothesis was wrong continued to emerge. But the IPCC and the vast majority of mainstream media simply ignored it. IPCC projections were wrong because the hypothesis was wrong. That the skeptics were correct was verified as CO2 levels continued to rise, while temperatures leveled and declined. But instead of amending the science, as is proper science, alarmists simply changed the terminology. They stopped talking about global warming and started talking about climate change. Leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit for 2004 explained:
Asher Minns, Communication and Centre Manager at the Tyndall Centre: “In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public relations problem with the media.”
Bo Kjellén, former Chief Climate Negotiator, Sweden; senior research fellow, Stockholm Environment Institute: “I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labeling than global warming.”
Climate change was an ideal label because activist scientists could use it to explain any weather event; hotter, colder, wetter, drier, it was all climate change. The public would not know that such events are normal, so alarmists would have an endless supply of frightening examples. The public also does not know that climate change in general is normal. It has often occurred more quickly and with greater magnitude than most people are aware. Current conditions are well within normal.
Those who knew how much climate changes naturally were those previously called global warming skeptics. They now became climate change deniers with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The fallacy is that they were anything but deniers. Indeed, they spend their careers educating people about the amount of climate change that has and is occurring.
Next time you witness personal attacks on scientists, call the attacker to answer for this despicable tactic. Ask them to address the outstanding science questions only. A hand wave toward the IPCC in response is insufficient.
Soon, when someone calls a person a global warming skeptic or climate change denier, informed observers will come to see it as conclusive proof that the abuser knows nothing about climate or scientific method. Then, the attacker, not the scientist being attacked, will be shunned
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Sorry Mark Bofill. What with dinner and the kids running amok I was late to the party, covered your points and lowered your bar for izen from a dozen to just the one. I don’t feel like I shot myself in the foot.
Much 😉
We may be climate deniers but they are climate morons. Greenland was green because of the medieval warming period. Wisconsiounian glacier was down to Racine and Kenosha counties and melted back to above the arctic circle. How do you spell idiot? Climate morons.
izen,
There was no solar “grand maximum” in the 1960s. There was, however, one in the 1990s, which is precisely why it was so warm then. CO2 had very little (if anything) to do with it.
Stephan
“So you also eat GM food because you believe the scientific consensus that it is safe?”
Not only is it safe but after 16 years(interesting number coincidence) there has not been a single documented case of harm by any world food safety authority. That after three trillion meals. Ergo SAFE food.
Now of course if yo want to quote the internet for contrary “evidence” well we all know it is not vetted information so anything goes in that forum.
Carter:
re your post addressed to me at December 19, 2012 at 8:51 am.
Please don’t try to be clever. It does not suit you and you can’t do it.
Richard
Steven Mosher says:
December 18, 2012 at 11:04 pm
… Personally as a libertarian, I find it odd that people would try to connect my belief in AGW to my politics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That just means you are a follower not a leader. Do you think the behind the scenes politicking is transparent so we can see what the movers and shakers are really up to?
Why the heck do you think Obama’s transparent EPA Czar Lisa Jackson named her internal email account “Richard Windsor”? Was it just for yucks, or was it to avoid FOIA as has been repeatedly done by all those involved with CAGW.
Why the heck do you think the US Congressional Committee on Science, Space and Technology is demanding the Administration Release Secret Data Behind Looming Air Rule and sent follow-up letters to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson and to White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler, once again requesting records related to the use of dual, secondary, or non-public email accounts.
Mosh, I really really recommend you read the very well researched article on US food and agricultureby Nicole Johnson. It is a real eye opener about the behind the scenes manipulation playing in the USA from 1945 to today. Five of the ten pages are references BTW.
TomRude says:
December 18, 2012 at 10:30 pm
As if to confirm Tim Ball’s column, the Vancouver Sun daily dose of global warming agitprop used King Tides to offer some UBC University Oceanographer a “global warming” tribune:
Tom your so right, not a day goes by without an Vancouver Sun BS global warming rant – were all going to die soon (maybe) article in that warmest rag = Its a pathetic paper! My only revenge is I never pay for it.
What do you expect when David Suzuki has a water front mansion here and Green Peace was born here.
The writer, C S Lewis, wrote a paper on this attitude at Oxford many years ago called ‘Bulverism’. It’s on the web such as here:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/culture/c-s-lewis-on-bulverism/
Tim rightly reminds us that it must be challenged or science is dead.
izen says:
December 19, 2012 at 7:49 am
I notice some here are claiming that the recent slowdown in warming is incompatible with rising CO2.
Wrong.
During a strong La Nina period and a solar minimum the global temperature is STILL higher than during the solar grand maximum in the 1960s and most of the past El Nino events.
Perhaps you need to set NOAA straight on this! According to NOAA, it is NOT BEING WARM that matters, but it is WARMING that matters. And yes, the last decade was warm. But RSS shows no warming for 16 years. Also with RSS, 2012 ranks 11th so far and 2011 will then be the 13th warmest, an 2008 is 22nd. So if things do not change here, three of the last five years will not even be in the top ten!
Peter Hannan says:
December 19, 2012 at 12:19 am
Agree with Steven Mosher to a limited extent: in rebutting ad hominem attacks, it’s important not to fall into the same thing, but to stick with the content / science / argument
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And that is why we are losing. Sticking to the science means the other side has to also stick to the science but as the Climate-gate e-mails and other statements show it is not about science it was never about science.
The IPCC even states that very clearly.
Science was the strawman the UN set-up for us to attack while they steamed ahead determining “options for mitigation and adaptation” aka Global Governance and since they have no real believe in what they say they can shift the ‘science’ target as they will.
The statement in an e-mail by Dr. Trenberth “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” is not the statement of a scientist who is truly worried about the earth warming but the statement of a spin-meister masquerading as a scientist who is worried his spin maybe falling apart.
There is hope. My son’s school had to watch Gore’s movie but the science teacher actually told the kids to find the errors so some quick googling and at least the smart kids don’t buy it anymore.
@Mosher and Izen: As a libertarian, I’m predisposed to believe that pretty much anything that is being used as a pretext to accrue more power to the rent-seeking classes is either a complete lie, or, more effectively, a gross exaggeration of something of much less consequence.
For example, I had no problem believing Saddam was a vicious tyrant, but thought it completely unlikely that he was either behind 9/11 or possessed WMDs. In that situation the D****rs included Hans Blix and Scott Ritter. Interestingly, Ritter was originally as true a believer as Hansen, Mann, or Trenberth but was ultimately persuaded by the evidence.
It’s amazing to me that after all this time, my “hooyah” acquaintances still argue that Saddam “had to be taken out” and, like Madeleine Albright, the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children (before the invasion) was “worth it”. I’m made out to be an apologist for Saddam for thinking otherwise, the ultimate d****r, whereas they must be right because they agree with the consensus.
In the case of CAGW, there is a hypothesis and, in my mind, a very small amount of evidence that CO2 may have a modest effect on our planet’s temperature. From that, the true believers argue that standards of living must decline by orders of magnitude in the developed world, that the undeveloped world must revert to even more primitive, barbaric conditions, and (coincidentally)
trillions of dollars need to be funneled to politically connected purveyors of solar panels and wind farms. Not to mention the global governance it will require to make sure that money is well-spent, meaning it ends up in the “right” hands.
Given that much of the “evidence” for CAGW has been exaggerated or even manufactured (Himalayan glaciers, temperature “adjustments”), and the price of “mitigation” so high, why would anyone find it unbelievable that a large proportion of us just aren’t buying it? You can believe whatever you want, but the rest of us shouldn’t be expected to pay for your beliefs.
Charlie says:
December 19, 2012 at 2:51 am
Since the 1960s there has been a large increase in the science budget in N America and W Europe. At the same time there has been a large increase in post 16 education but the average standard of maths,physics and chemistry teaching has probably gone down….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It has gone down at least in the USA.
I gave up hiring any lab techs under the age of 35. Worse think of the Civil Engineers who grew up with calculators and not slide rules. Dr. Robinson mentioned a guy designing a bridge on his farm that made mistake by an order of 100X and could not even see it. Heck just ask random youngsters six times nine and see how many wrong answers or hesitations you get.
A problem here: “The IPCC claim is an unproven hypothesis. Science advances by proposing hypotheses that other scientists challenge in their proper role as skeptics.” We do not probe stuff, anything using science that is left to courts and lawyers who are arrogant enough to think they can prove stuff. We don’t disprove wither. We do falsify i.e. demonstrate that something is wrong or in error. And once you can no longer falsify and the preponderance of empirical data points to something we call it verified. So the IPCC’s claim is an unsubstantiated hypothesis.
FAO richardscourtney
‘Please don’t try to be clever.’ what do you mean? Is it because I said you were too sensitive?
Henry Galt says:
December 19, 2012 at 9:18 am
…
🙂
I don’t want to be unfair in demanding a substantial amount of evidence, but as I see it Izen was the one who put forward the claim in the first place by saying ‘…if the overwhelming majority of the knowledge that science has collected on the climate over the last century all points conclusively to AGW…’. If this is the case, I wouldn’t think 12 pieces of irrefutable evidence would be that hard to come up with. Maybe I’m wrong. I simply think the burden of supporting a statement falls on the person making the statement.
Dr. Ball,
It would be difficult to determine which camp is losing the argument based on the use of the ad hom fallacy. People on this site are “deniers” and “skeptics.” And it’s very common to call the people who believe in catastrophic AGW, “chicken little.”
See here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/18/the-mayan-end-of-the-world-prediction-and-climate-catastrophe/ for example.
TimC says:
December 19, 2012 at 5:01 am
While I quite agree with the main premise of this article I find it sad that scientists appear to have rather a thin skin about being called the names as cited here, and feel impelled to expend time and energy writing these articles. Wouldn’t it be better just to get on with the real work of deducing the true causes of change in regional and global climate…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..
You can’t as the treatment of Zbigniew Jaworowski showed.
If a world renown scientist like Dr. Jaworowski was treated in that way do you really think any of the lesser scientists would attempt to buck the system?
Peter F Kemmis said @ur momisugly December 19, 2012 at 2:26 am
As Bert Large said in an episode of Doc Martin: “For every problem, there’s a solution… And vice versa.”
Labeling People ‘Climate Change Deniers’ Merely Reveals the Attacker’s Ignorance.
From what I’ve gathered, supporting the CAGW concept displays one’s ignorance as well.
“By the end of 2012 the stupid meme of “global warming” stopping will be over.
Some things to note: several ‘skeptics” have stupidly forecast cooling it [sic] should be interesting to watch them respond as the sun goes quiet and the temps go up.” (Steven Mosher, July 6 2012)
only 12 days to go
arfur can read the palpitations quite plainly.
flopsweat!
Stephen Mosher: “Guess what? The theory that AGW is all about politics? as a theory? falsified by this libertarian.”
A ‘Libertarian’ being an appellation for a political philosophy (set of beliefs) that do not state that Group/State control or other Social Contracts (Locke, Rousseau) are invalid, but that only certain manners of joining members to the contract are.
Nothing at all prevents a Libertarian from believing in the benefits of a contract that places limitations and restrictions on its members and/or that hands the arbitration, management, and oversight of the contractual content to a third party. This is either a prevarication demonstrating your terrible ignorance of this Political Philosophy, or a wholly irrational and contradictory argument to make.
Izen. Do you agree that the world has been slowly warming at a reasonably steady rate since the LIA? Do you also agree that since about the 1880’s thermometers have recorded less than 1C temp increase? Do you agree that the thermometer measured temp increase appears to reflect about the same rate of temperature increase as since the LIA? Do you agree that while CO2 levels are showing a steady increase the world has apparently not shown any statistical increase in temperature during the last 16-17 years? Do you agree that historically CO2 levels follow temperature? Do you agree that the current increasing CO2 levels makes plants grow better? Do you agree with the research that shows extreme weather and precipitation during the last 30 years is well within normal historic variation?
Can you understand why an increasing number of interested but non scientific people like me “believe” our increasing CO2 levels does not cause any significant warming and is not in any way dangerous?
If you have any hard evidence that refutes any of the above please cite it here.
izen says:
December 19, 2012 at 6:04 am
….One important lesson is that while individual sources may be suspect, if the overwhelming majority of the knowledge that science has collected on the climate over the last century all points conclusively to AGW then rejecting this comprehensive consensus in the EVIDENCE is foolish.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So what do you do when science has collected evidence about the climate over the last several centuries that show nothing much is happening?
graph
graph
graph
graph
graph
temp graph 91 proxies
graph
NH summer Insolation vs temperature graph
20th C movement of Koppen climate boundary – graph
When put into the context of the age of the earth CAGW falls completely apart.
Steven Mosher says:
December 19, 2012 at 7:02 am
But you all go believing that the science of reading peoples motives is settled.
Guess what? The theory that AGW is all about politics? as a theory? falsified by this libertarian.
So tell us, Steven, what could possibly be the motives of someone who uses a strawman, which is what you just did? I’ll be kind and assume you didn’t mean to, or are just having a bad day, like you were on another thread recently. We all have those. Still, perhaps you could explain yourself. If not too much trouble, that is.